It may only prove the operator is adept at arranging affairs so the recording only makes it appear to be a clean operation. 73, kelly, ve4xt _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest
Unknown to me until I ordered them You can get what some opticians refer to as computer lenses. Theyre a simplified form of progressive lenses and are typically only suitable for work: the upper half
Hi Mike, Youre right: SDR recordings could be used to detect padding of both logs and audio files with phony QSOs. Without crafting a how-to guide to cheating, I can think of a half-dozen OTHER ways
Those rules, and any rules, only apply to people actually entering the contest. Those who merely play radio during a contest with no intention of filing a contest entry may use whatever technology is
You might be participating in the contest by working folks in the contest, but youre still only bound by the rules if you enter. The existence of any contest does not bind the entire amateur radio un
There has to be room in contesting, and in the results, for everyone; from the big super stations with dedicated fibre-to-the-home to the gal who has to manually tune the tank circuit of her T4XC on
Dont kill the idea, just dont make it mandatory. 73, kelly, ve4xt _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman
You only enter once you submit your log. The rules don't say HP must use high power, only that you may, and only that LP may not use high power. If you complete a contest as LP and decide, based on c
Yes, 100 per cent. You cant go back and change categories after the fact. Youre in whatever you said you were in. With regards to 3830, you have the right to remain silent, and Id argue there are goo
Are you under the impression sponsors don't want results out sooner? That there's some kind of conspiracy to delay the work involved? Have you volunteered to assist with adjudication? The economics o
I wasn't trying to attack, but I do know the League, for one, puts out results online as soon as they are compiled and the results author can craft a short who-smote-whom story. The printed version c
(This is directed at the thread, not to counter anything written by K3ZJ) The X-QSO tool is a sound practice of correcting for brain cramps. I do not believe anyone would want a big multi-op stations
Hi Mike, Whos to say it wouldnt be obvious if someone was gaming the system? A station that changes bands continuously throughout a 10-minute window would clearly be breaking the rules, X-QSO or not.
All the power to you, Charles! As long as youre not entering a log, youre not doing anything wrong. 73, kelly, ve4xt, _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contes
Hi Mike, I agree this is getting old, but I dont think thats because there is anything wrong with reasonable use of X-QSO to deal with instances where you dont wish to break the rules but dont wish t
Hi Mike, Since you are focusing on the 10-minute rule, and seem intent on considering violations of that rule a sin punishable by DQ, would it surprise you to learn that CQ does not? E. Log Checking:
Not quite: you have no control over whether someone unrelated to your operation (or on CW, Skimmer) spots you, so your being spotted in that way doesn't affect your unassisted status. If it were oth
Hi Vince, Very simple: unassisted means you can't receive spots, not that you can't send them. Self-spotting restrictions aren't limited to unassisted, they apply to all. 73, kelly, ve4xt Sent from m
If there is, as apparently there is, evidence of multiple incursions by US stations into forbidden band segments, in violation of US law, why zero DQs? Why isn't the law-and-order contingent clamouri
The best part is, with some compromise, you can make it work even if you dont have an 80-foot tower. Note to John, K1AR: more posts like these, fewer about DQs 73, kelly, ve4xt ______________________